D.N. Upadhyay, J. - (1.) This Cr. M.P. has been tiled for quashing the order dated 19.6.2001, whereby and where under, cognisance of the offence under Sections 403, 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner by the C.J.M., Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 11 of 2001.
(2.) The brief fact appearing from the complaint is that Bokaro Steel Plant, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited (for short SAIL) awarded a contract to M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (for short, TISCO), Growth Shop for certain works. TISCO Growth Shop completed supply part of the work and erection, part of the work was entrusted by it to M/s. Tata Construction & Projects Ltd. (for short TCPL). It is disclosed that TCPL in turn issued tender enquiry and awarded the work to M/s. Singh Construction Co.. the complainant. It is alleged that after completion of the work, the complainant demanded payment of the balance amount under the contract from TCPL. But the accused Nos. 2 and 3, the then Managing Director and President of TCPL have failed to clear the dues, when the complainant did not receive the payment for the work done by him, he felt himself cheated and lodged this complaint. After holding the enquiry, the petitioner and other accused were directed to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406. 420 and 120-B, IPC.
(3.) It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that there was no contract between TISCO and the present complainant and therefore, the petitioner is not responsible for violation of any terms and conditions or for misappropriation of any amount, if it is done by TCPL with whom the complainant company entered into a contract. It is desirable to mention that initially, the contract was given by SAIL to TISCO. The TISCO performed part of the work and for completion of the rest of the work, TCPL was authorised, who invited tender and given job to the present complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2003 arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 2654 of 2002 with Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2003 arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 2698 of 2002 vide order dated 20.1.2003 set aside the order dated 19.6.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 11 of 2001 after having discussion on the facts and circumstances as well as the law applicable in this regard. The same order has been challenged in this criminal miscellaneous petition by the petitioner who is figured as accused No. 1 in this complaint. The case of the present petitioner is on much better footing than those of accused Nos. 2 and 3 who were the Managing Director and President of TCPL with whom the complainant had an agreement.;